Up Is Down, Down Is Up: Bill O'Reilly Explains OWS

On his Friday night show, Bill O'Reilly took his viewers to a magical place–one where the right-wing Koch brothers have no connection to the Tea Party movement, while Occupy Wall Street is a secret project directed and financed by the likes of Moveon.org, SEIU and George Soros.

At the top of his broadcast, O'Reilly wondered if we are now in "phase two of the campaign to undermine America"–this would apparently be the phase where activists protest against police brutality, with an assist from "the radical MoveOn organization, which is funding some of the occupiers."

As he explained his conspiracy theory:

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is not a spontaneous protest against economic inequality. It is a well-thought-out campaign to bring down the infrastructure of this country, to turn us into a Western European-type entitlement state.

That's what George Soros, MoveOn, the SEIU and many far-left journalists want. And they are using the protests to that end.

O'REILLY: OK, well, you can believe anything you want, you're an American, but you made a statement that the Koch brothers were tied into the Tea Party financially. Can you prove that?

MARSHALL: Well, the Koch Brothers (INAUDIBLE) such as Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

O'REILLY: Can you prove it. Wait. Wait, wait, wait, Leslie.

MARSHALL: Yes.

O'REILLY: Leslie, you're a Fox News contributor. You have a responsibility. Can you prove the Koch brothers are tied into the Tea Party financially? Can you?

MARSHALL: With a check in hand, no.

O'REILLY: OK. Thank you.

While it's certainly the responsibility of a guest to be able to document such facts, it's rather unlikely that O'Reilly would have accepted any such facts anyway.

Do the Koch brothers have anything to do with the Tea Party? Well, yes. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation was founded by Charles Koch, and has served to train Tea Party activists. As Jane Mayer reported in the New Yorker (8/30/10):

Americans for Prosperity has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement's inception. In the weeks before the first Tax Day protests, in April, 2009, Americans for Prosperity hosted a website offering supporters "Tea Party Talking Points." The Arizona branch urged people to send tea bags to Obama; the Missouri branch urged members to sign up for "Taxpayer Tea Party Registration" and provided directions to nine protests. The group continues to stoke the rebellion. The North Carolina branch recently launched a "Tea Party Finder" website, advertised as "a hub for all the Tea Parties in North Carolina."

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to "educate," fund and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement.

Or as one source rather colorfully put it:

A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party: "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It's like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud–and they're our candidates!"

And Dick Armey's FreedomWorks group, which has very publicly helped organize Tea Party activists, is the product of a merger between Empower America and Citizens for a Sound Economy–the latter heavily backed by the Koch brothers.

So other than founding and funding the groups that have been key organizers and trainers of the Tea Party movement, the Kochs have little to do with it.

Don't tell that to Bill O'Reilly, though. He can only connect certain dots:

This isn't a spontaneous demonstration against crony capitalism. If it were, they would be in front of the White House. This is organized by the unions backed up by George Soros and the MoveOn people.

The links between those groups and OWS prompted the other guest, Caroline Heldman, to turn the tables on O'Reilly:

HELDMAN: Bill, do you have evidence to back up those links? Do you have evidence?

O'REILLY: Yes, absolutely, we have reporters down there all the time and the reporters ask people who they are, where they are going. The spontaneous people are back to their jobs; 85 percent of them, Dr. Heldman, have jobs. You can't stay off the job for a month. I can back what I say up.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

This whole article reminds me of a man I once knew. I once shared an office with an elderly man, a very pleasant man. I often had very pleasant conversations about many topics. Politically, he was ultra conservative. For example, he believed that when Nixon ordered the break-in at the Watergate complex, it was an act of national security. Why? Becasue Nixon knew that McCarthy was being supported by the North Vietnamese and wanted to get the goods on McCarthy and expose him nationally as a traitor. This elderly gentleman truly believed that the entire anti-war movement of the 60s was funded by outside agents, i.e. the Soviet Union and North Viet Nam. It was unthinkable to him that there could be a grass roots protest by Americans against US policies in Southeast Asia. (He felt the same way about the civil Rights Movement.) My mother (now 90 years old) was arrested on the Peace Bridge back in the 60s. When I told her this gentleman's point of view she quipped, "Yeah, and the Russians bought my bus ticket." lest anyone misunderstand, my mother bought her own bus ticket.

If the Tea Party cannot be considered grassroots because a few groups like Prosperity for America or FreedomWorks donated to it, then neither can OWS when it was started by Adbusters and joined by the big labor unions.

Gasp. Oh no. Did I just hold libtarded moonbats to the exact same standard as those on the right? Never mind. That\'s clearly false equivalency. Disregard.

@Blamethe1st: I'll agree to that: Neither can be considered a grass roots movement. Happy? Care to retract the slurs?

And by the way, since when did the idea of "grass roots" become syonymous with "good" or "worthy of respect?" The Tea Party represents an interest– no more or less special than the interest the NRA represents. OWS as well. They can claim they're acting in the best interests of the country all they want. But I'm part of this country and I'd much prefer both groups to shut the eff up and go away now. Point taken already, ya bunch of zealots.

"If the Tea Party cannot be considered grassroots because a few groups like Prosperity for America or FreedomWorks donated to it"

Those groups (run by corporate lobbyists, Koch hands, and professional astroturfers) didn't donate to the Tea Party–they invented it, and spent a bloody fortune doing so, building it into real numbers when NewsCorp became its propaganda arm. It never had numbers, and was only a force because a lot of influential people decided to portray it as one; without much notice, it has essentially collapsed in the last year, as Fox began dialing back its relentless pimping in a bid to appear more sane in the build-up to the 2012 elections.

OWS is a popular uprising, and has grown organically. It has no big-money benefactors, no one spending a fortune to set up overnight "spontaneous" internet networks, no billionaires spending a fortune sending buses to every corner of the U.S. to haul in "spontaneous" demonstrators, no 24-hour national cable network pimping it every three minutes. Adbusters did run the first call for it; Adbusters is an uber-obscure Canadian publication, without money or muscle, which has played no role in the subsequent movement. To compare it to the huge-money forces behind the Tea Party is hilarious, at best.

And to add to what classicliberal2 said; the whole OWS movement was ignored, downplayed and outright marginalized by the media. Not so the Tea Party; as soon as they had a handful of people show up, they would be covered in the media as though a huge crowed were doing this. In the meantime, many other "large crowds" of thousands or more were ignored.

Some people here do a wonderful imitation of duckspeak, only by posting. Maybe we can start a new 'insoc Black/White" word and call it 'rox-txt', Short for Xerox texting. Just coping someones idea and words and reposting them over and over. And it it's about your "side" it's double plus good, but everyone else is Double plus Un-Good.

And in Spokane, WA the supposedly non-partisan candidate for Mayor David Condon recieved $25,000 from the state GOP to conduct his campaign against incumbent Mary Vernor. And that can be proved Bill-boy

It was the Kochs and Dick Armey who launched and funded (and are funding) the TP, and in turn it was Fxxcked News who joined in to promote and provide media support. This perverted netword was practically breathless when they were handed off the TPs — I remember it well. All of this is well documented in the Jane Mayer New Yorker piece.

And while we are at it, let\'s boycott sociopath Koch brother's products. Here is a short list of those that are commonly encountered:

The Congressional Budget Office validated a key point of the OWS movement. The income gap between rich and poor in the U.S. grew significantly from 1979 to 2007. The top 1% of earners saw their incomes go up by 275 percent.
On top of this, the OECD's 2010 report on social mobility found that America is no longer a land of opportunity. It is now much harder to climb the socioeconomic ladder between generations in the U.S. than in many other developed nations.
From my perspective, OWS is a true grassroots movement that has grown out of the sadness, frustration, and anger of Americans who understand that the system is rigged against them and that no one in power seems to care. They see a dismal future for themseles and their children.
Thanks, OWS, for not accepting the status quo. Thanks for no longer accepting the gross inequality of two economies–one for the rich and well-connected and one for the rest of us.
Instead of rebutting these facts of gross economic inequality and of loss of social mobility, here comes Bill O'Reilly to cast aspersions on the movement and blame all those "radical" organizations.

Hearing some of the commentary from the right in here was as funny as reading this weeks News Week story about OWS, which tries to make the Tea Party credible and "a lot like OWS" as it suggests these folks want cuts to Social Security and Medicare as long as the rich pay taxes. People on Social Security and Medicare have been taking it on the chin for a long time now and have already experienced cuts while government bails out billionaires with trillions of dollars the rich won't pay back! OWS is a combination of people from all walks of life who have been severely damaged by this economic downturn created solely by people just like the Koch brothers. And yes I'd like to see that Soro's receipt. Pure nonsense!

I have been to some occupations myself and the people I met and spoke with were the same kind of folks who promote other civil rights, justice and peace issues on the local level.
What is actually needed in America IS a wealthy progressive who would fund an alternative to all the right wing blather that blankets our media 24/7. The fact that we are Lacking that right now gives a little insight into how false Bills' charge is. You can hear right wing pro-pig-anda everywhere you turn, but anything progressive leaning is very hard to find. Corporations are only too happy to supply us the rope we need to hang ourselves. Shame on us if we use it.

Actually I thing both charges are wrong.I have been Tea part since day one.I have never seen any influence of the koch brothers in anything.They are ineffectual in my eyesThe tea party are made up of normal people who think the government has gone too far.They go to rallies to say we need candidates who will abide by the constitution,and lesson governments strong hand in our lives.Pretty simple stuff that need no machiavellion influence or funding.
By the same token OWS are simply people gathering to show their outrage at the bleeding of this country.And at the perceived ease that some of our most fortunate still live.They ask the question, are the powers that be- playing under fair rules, as they suffer.I don't think they need Soros to feel the way they do.
I am not saying the Koch brothers and George Soros don't have strong opinions and money to back it.Influence peddling are there trade marks.What i am saying is that both are impotent power brokers, "outside" both of these grass roots movements.I really thing their hands in any of this have been massively over rated.

Michael e: "…..the government has gone too far." In what way? My local paper reported that a thousand tea-party activists cheered as Herman "999" McCain assaulted the "entitlement" society. Willard "corporations are people" Romney promised to overhaul Medicare and Social Security (gulp). At the end of the article, "David Koch, who was in the front row, joined in the applause."
Koch, with all his billions, is no impotent power broker, from what I read about the millions he gives to ultra conservative causes and people, and one has to ask why, with all his money, does he hate programs for the less fortunate?

Well Elaine the government has been overstepping it's constitutional authority for a long time now.The size and scope of their involvement in our lives is unacceptable and not in keeping with the framing of this country or American ideals.Couple that with the ideals of the currant occupant of the white house who believes in a massively empowered Fed and we have plenty of room for dissent.The stage is set for two opposing ideals of what America is.
I have questions about 999 but it is a step back toward what made this country great.Everyone having skin in the game.An end to tax loopholes.And a returning of rights away from the fed back to the individual .The government has been a lousy steward of our economy.On all levels.They are not worthy of any more power.999 takes away power and that is a damn good thing.I think it can be tweaked to impact the real poor no more than what we have today.For the middle class I think it will be appreciated.For the rich it will take away all tax shelters.For the users it will force some accounting.
McCain….. if he did assault our nanny state well what of it?
Willard….Is just stating a fact.Corporations are people.Almost every small business and big, can use the legal protection offered .The idea that they are a cohesive force(corporatism) formed to enslave and all the rest of that nonsense is simply the lefts boogeyman .It is an age old trick that helps foster class warfare.
As far as the Kochs being impotent in the instance I described….I think they are.Just as Soros is with the OWS .
As far as why do they hate programs for the less fortunate .I don't know much of them personally ,but that is a question asked of many conservative.So i will answer from that vantage.We do not.We simply acknowledge that the creation of a nanny state helps no-one.It destroys the poor.Weakens the middle class.It is quite literally a return to the plantation system.It is a disempowerment of this country . 50% pay nothing today.The lefts only idea to that is take more from the 1%?That is a game you can only play so long.People on the right do not agree with taxing success, and subsidizing failure.We believe this country can explode.We do not feel the poor will stay poor as a constant underclass(and for the left voting block).We believe they will achieve any dream they want.I have a friend who's father and mother came here poor ,uneducated,illiterate,speaking not a word of english ,She is a brilliant surgeon and business woman.She worked endless jobs through school and had no gov handouts along the way.Don't tell me about the less fortunate staying that way.When did the left loose the American dream?They did not.All the lefts leaders are living it.They just tell you you can't.We on the right shout down that mantra.People like pres nominee Kane speaks of empowerment.I just don't think you understand that language after being schooled in liberalism for so long.

Michael e: You wrote so much, it's hard to know where to begin. What, specifically, is the government involvement in peoples' lives that you resent? I agree that the Federal Reserve has too much power, or at the very least, not enough transparency, but I don't hear any candidates, on either side, talking about that. What rights do you want returned?
The government has been a lousy steward of the economy: I believe what has happened is that government is often complicit with corporations in rewriting laws or creating policies that have no purpose other than to abolish the few limits that still constrain corporations. The repeal of Glass Steagall is one glaring example and, even as government fights for financial reform (in the weaker Dodd Frank Bill), it is being met with huge resistance from Wall St. I believe government has the capacity to do wonderful things for people if it chooses to do so and if politicians were truly representing us, instead of the people who pay for their seats.
I agree: take away corporate loopholes but 999 is a regressive tax plan.
Corporations are not people. These are entities created by law. They are not human beings.
A nanny state? To want universal health care which, I believe, all other major economies have had for years, weakens the middle class and destroys the poor? It is lack of access to medical care which destroys the poor and allows thousands of people every year to die as a result when access is denied. It is a for-profit health care system which is rising faster than this economy can afford which is destroying the middle class. It is completely unsustainable. How does having to pay a middleman insurance company about $.30 of every health care dollar make me better, faster? I look upon health care as a basic right for everyone, like clean air and clean water.
The people who pay no taxes don't earn enough money but they do pay other taxes: sales tax, local taxes, property taxes (if they own a home), or taxes in rent money, payroll taxes. What about the corporations that pay no taxes? What about their tax havens which deny much needed tax money and which, when they don't pay, the rest of us pay or have the program cut. Today, in the paper, for example, I read a letter about spikes in medical assistance denials, including a woman with breast cancer, a college student with colon cancer, and a man who recently lost his job, just as he was diagnosed with cancer.
You appear to blame the poor for being poor, for not working hard enough? Everybody can be a surgeon? No, not everybody can be a surgeon and I defy anyone to prove to me that everybody can be a surgeon. Everyone can be rich? No, not everyone can be rich, if for no other reason than this planet cannot sustain the huge amount of resources it would take for everybody to live a hugely consumptive, wealthy life.
Michael, we are all entitled to our opinions but I would not want to live in your world or in a society that appears to lack basic human empathy.

You new around here, Elaine? Don't feed the trolls. And the troll above is the troll of trolls, as you will find out, if you keep feeding him, imagining somehow that you can reason with him, or that your truth will shake him out of his outrageous lies and anti-democratic bullshit.

1. michael e Says:
November 5th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Well Elaine the government has been overstepping it's constitutional authority for a long time now. The size and scope of their involvement in our lives is unacceptable and not in keeping with the framing of this country or American ideals.
Typical michael e rhetoric: Bumper sticker rhetoric. NO SUBSTANCE. One can only guess what the government involvement IS that e whine about because HE NEVER SAYS.
Who made e the arbiter of what constitutes ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“American idealsÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ? E is CLUELESS and IGNORANT of history.
In an article I have by Richard Grossman, he explains that, ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“many colonial citizens argued that under the Constitution, no business could be granted special privileges. Others worried that once incorporaters amassed wealth, they would use their corporate shields to control jobs and production, buy off the press and dominate elections and the courts (sounds like today, right?)ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Because of widespread opposition to corporations, those early legislators granted very few charters. They denied charters altogether when communities opposed the plans of prospective incorporators.

Citizens governed corporations by specifying rules and operating conditions ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬“ not just in the charters, but also in state constitutions and laws. Incorporated businesses were banned from taking any action that citizens and legislators did not specifically allow.

States limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Citizen authority clauses dictated rules for issuing stock, for shareholder voting, for issuing stock, for obtaining corporate information, for paying dividends and for keeping records. They limited corporate capitalization, debts, land holdings and sometimes profits. They required a company\'s books to be turned over to a legislature upon requestÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Revocation clauses were written into Pennsylvania charters as early as 1784ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦By the 1870\'s, the people of 19 states had amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by legislaturesÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska successfully revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whisky trusts. In 1894, the Central Labor Union of New York City, citing a pattern of abuses, asked the state\'s attorney general to revoke the charter of the Standard Oil Trust of New York, which the court did.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ

THIS is the HISTORICAL REALITY of what PEOPLE were concerned about. NOT liberals, BUT AMERICANS WANTED government to rein in the CORPORATE PLUTOCRACY GOING BACK TO THE 1700s. Michael e is a brainwashed ignorant FOOL.

Michael e and those of his ilk prattle on endlessly about the ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“nanny stateÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ while being TOTALLY BLIND to the criminality and costs borne to society resulting from the Corporate Plutocracy:

Corporate Crime

Russel Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, estimates that white collar crime costs the nation's businesses and individuals at least $100 billion EACH YEAR. (A sum incidentally that is more than 10 times greater then the combined total from larcenies, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts committed by individuals.) If you count other corporate underhandedness, such as monopolistic price fixing and the sale of faulty goods, the price tag jumps about $200 billion more. And the Justice Department estimates that ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“taxpayers lose $10 to $20 billion when corporations violate federal regulations.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ Corporate Crime is so commonplace according to Mokhiber, that roughly two thirds of the country's 500 largest companies were involved in some form of illegal behavior over a 10-year period. Despite such lawlessness, the white-collar detectives at the FBI do not track corporate crime regularly. ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“The government can tell the public whether burglary is up or down in Los Angeles for any given month, but it cannot say the same about insider trading, midnight dumping, consumer defrauding, or illegal polluting.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ (Dollars & Sense – Nov. 1989)

Externalized Corporate Costs Borne by Society

Ralph Estes is a professor of business administration at American University. He holds a doctorate in business administration from Indiana University. He wrote a book not too long ago called the Tyranny of the Bottom Line in which he estimates that the amount of annual costs that corporations and other businesses externalize and that must be borne by customers, employees, and society is $2,618 billion (TWO TRILLION SIX HUNDRED and EIGHTEEN BILLION DOLLARS – in 1991dollars and then adjusted to 1994 dollars.) This figure does NOT include special tax breaks corporations get or the direct subsidies that they receive. Compared to total corporate profits in the order of Five Hundred and Fifteen Billion Dollars, the estimated societal COSTS of corporations are five and one half times the amount of their benefits.

Michael e:.The government has been a lousy steward of our economy.On all levels. Really? REALLY?

HOW BLIND AND STUPIC CAN THIS GUY BE???? It was WALL STREET AND THE BANKS THAT DROVE THE ECONOMY OVER THE CLIFF!!!!

What has the glorious private CORPORATE PLUTOCRACY done as "stewards" of the economy???

Headlines for April 19, 2011
U.S. Firms Shipped Millions of Jobs Overseas in 2000s
In economic news, new data from the U.S. Department of Commerce shows the largest U.S. multinational companies cut their work forces in the United States by 2.9 million over the past 10 years, while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. In 2009, the contrast was most stark. U.S. companies cut 1.2 million jobs at home while adding 100,000 jobs overseas.
The Global Picture

To quote David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World:

"Beginning with Adam Smith, market theory has been quite explicit that the
efficiency of the market's self-organizing dynamic is a consequence of
small, locally owned enterprises competing in local markets on the basis of
price, quality, and service in response to customer-defined needs and
values. No buyer or seller may be large enough to influence the market
price individually.

By contrast, what we know as the global capitalist economy is dominated by
a few financial speculators and a handful of globe-spanning
megacorporations able to use their massive financial clout and media
out-reach to manipulate prices, determine what products will be available
to consumers, absorb or drive competitors from the market, and reshape the
values of popular culture to create demand for what the corporations choose
to offer."

In understanding the nature of the structural changes that have occurred in the global economy, it is important to understand the shift that has occurred between the real economy and the speculative economy. In an article entitled ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“From the Real Economy to the Speculative,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ Bernard Lietaer explains the distinction between the real and speculative economy and the shift that has occurred:

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“In 1975, about 80 percent of foreign exchange transactions (where one national currency is exchanged for another) were to conduct business in the real economy. For instance, currencies change hands to import oil, export cars, buy corporations, invest in portfolios, or build factories. Real transactions actually produce or trade goods and services. The remaining 20 percent of transactions in 1975 were speculative, which means that the sole purpose was an expected profit from buying and selling currencies themselves, based on their changing valuesÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Today the real economy in foreign exchange transactions is down to 2.5 percent and 97.5 percent is now speculative.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ

THAT STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY IS DRIVEN BY THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, MICHAEL E. ARE YOU LISTENING????

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“The global quantity of available work is shrinking ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬“ this beingÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦a STRUCTURAL (emphasis mine) problem related directly to the passing of control over crucial economic factors from the representative institutions of government to the free play of market forces. There is, therefore, little thatÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦the state may do to combat itÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Hans Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, economic experts of Der Spiegel, calculate that if the present trend continues unabated, 20 percent of the global (potential) workforce will suffice ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¹Ã…â€œto keep the economy going\' (whatever that means) which will leave the other 80% of the able-bodied population of the world economically redundant. One can thinkÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦of ways to reverse, arrest or at least slow down the trend, but the major issue today is no longer what is to be done, but who has the power and the resolve to do it. Behind the expanding insecurity of the millions dependent on selling their labour, lurks the absence of a potent and effective agency which could, with will and resolve, make their plight less insecureÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Insecurity of livelihood, compounded with the absence of a trustworthy and reliable agency capable of making it less secureÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦strikes a severe blow at the heart of life politics, ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦There is less and less paid work aroundÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦Unemployment looks more sinister than ever beforeÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦.We learn for instanceÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦that in France the volume of work available in 1991 was just 57 percent of that on offer in 1891: 34.1 billion hours instead of 60 billion. During that period the GNP multiplied by ten, hourly productivity by eighteen, while the total number of people at work increased in a hundred years from only 19 million to 22 million. Roughly similar trends have been recorded in all countries which began industrialization in the nineteenth century. The figures speak volumes about the reasons to feel insecure even in the most stable and regular jobs.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ
In ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Troubling Truths about the Global Economy,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ David Korten concludes by saying:
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Correcting the massive dysfunction that economic globalization has created will not be easy. The starting point must be a clear recognition that this dysfunction is inherent in a globalized economic system. We should also be clear that this system was put in place through intentional policy choices orchestrated by the powerful and well-organized economic interests that benefited from it. We can just as well put in place policies that result in a sharing of the benefits of technological change, and return both economic and political power to the local communities where people live and work.

This will require people and communities to recognize that their interests are better served by international cooperation than by global competition. Through cooperation we can put in place policies that create a bias in favor of local rather than global capital and productions systems, help us to move toward greater equity, protect the environment, nurture cultural diversity and exchange, raise living standards, and share experience knowledge, and technologies to the benefit of all people everywhere.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ

And as far as the governments inability to create jobs:

What the New Deal Accomplished
651,000 miles of highway. 8,000 parks. The Triborough Bridge

The New Deal physically reshaped the country. To this day, Americans still rely on its works for transportation, electricity, flood control, housing, and community amenities. The output of one agency alone, the Works Progress Administration, represents a magnificent bequest to later generations. The WPA produced, among many other projects, 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields; some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings built, rebuilt, or expanded. Among the latter were 41,300 schools.

HERE IS WHAT WE CAN DO NOW:

HOW WE CAN PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK

1) Study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy (IHSP):
Medicare for All (Single Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages. The number of jobs created by a single payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study.
Green-collar enthusiasts aren't stopping there — they are also calling on the federal government to help ignite change. Investing $100 billion in green technologies and industries "would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry, and would reduce the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent over two years," according to a study released in September by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst under commission by the Center for American Progress.
The study presented at the EESI briefing, entitled "Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century," was commissioned by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) as a follow-up to its earlier "Tackling Climate Change" report in order to provide a detailed look at the economic development side of addressing global warming.

Presenting the results of the report, lead investigator Roger Bedzak, president of Management Information Services, Inc., said that over 446,000 people were directly and indirectly employed by the renewable industry in 2006. Within the renewable energy sector, 16,000 were directly employed by the wind industry, with a total of 36,800 jobs supported (directly and indirectly) by the wind industry in 2006.

The report also looks at possible job growth under both moderate and advanced industry growth scenarios. Under the "business as usual" base-case scenario, which assumes no major policy reform to encourage renewables or efficiency, renewables jobs nevertheless increase to over 1.3 million by 2030. Meanwhile, by 2030 over 3 million are created under the moderate growth scenario, and nearly 8 million jobs are created under the advanced growth scenario. The wind industry would support approximately 250,000 jobs in 2030 in the moderate growth scenario and 1.2 million jobs in the advanced scenario.

"The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the USA needs to spend $1.6 trillion over five years to put its infrastructure ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬”Â which includes some 590,000 bridges ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬”Â in good condition."
2) Snapshot for September 3, 2008.

Our failing grade on maintaining school facilities
by Ethan Pollack (Economic Policy Institute)
Back to school season is always a nervous time for parents, but there is one thing they shouldn't have to worry about: the condition of the school buildings themselves. Unfortunately, school infrastructure spending, after being adjusted for increased construction costs, has decreased dramatically since 2001. While student enrollment has increased 3% since 2001, adjusted spending on school maintenance and construction has dropped by 42%, from $34.9 billion in 2001 to $20.3 billion in 2007. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently graded U.S. schools a "D."

Inadequate facilities can have a negative effect on academic achievement and student health. According to a Department of Education survey, 43% of schools indicated that the condition of their permanent facilities "interferes with the delivery of instruction," with heating and air conditioning being the most common complaint. Furthermore, both the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency have found that "poor environments in schools due primarily to effects of indoor pollutants adversely influence the health, performance, and attendance of students."

3) Bernie Sanders:on a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund:

Not only would a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund help solve the affordable housing crisis in the United States, it would also generate 1.8 million decent paying new jobs and nearly $50 billion in wages according to a recent study by the Center for Community Change. As today\'s economy continues to sputter with layoffs over 600% from last year, and as millions of Americans are paying 40 to 50% of their limited incomes on housing, the creation of a National Affordable Housing Trust is needed now more than ever.

4)
Subject: Clean Energy Gets President Obama's Attention and Public's Support
Date: 6/18/2010 5:43:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
EPA and Other Analyses Look at Economic Impacts of the American Power Act
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency released an analysis of the American Power Act, authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that looked at its impact on consumers and found that the bill will reduce consumers' energy bills through 2030, due to improved energy efficiency from a price on carbon. The EPA analysis also found that the American Power Act would keep overall household costs to a minimum for the life of the bill-between $79 and $146 per year. You can read the analysis on the EPA website.
Another analysis released this week by the ClimateWorks Foundation found that average employment levels under the American Power Act will be 440,000 higher between 2012 and 2020 than under a business-as-usual scenario, and 540,000 higher between 2012 and 2030. The ClimateWorks study also looked at consumer impacts and found that the American Power Act will save consumers $35 on their annual household utility bills through 2020.
A National Research Council study found renewable sources could supply 10 percent of the country\'s energy by 2020 with existing technology.
If we could make 25 percent of our electricity needs with renewable energy by 2025, then up to 850,000 jobs could be created.

5) UT analysis advocates linking climate, bioenergy policies
By Margot Emery, University of Tennessee
Nov. 11, 2010 2:03pm
What is in this article?:
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ UT analysis advocates linking climate, bioenergy policies
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ Standard to be met by 2025
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ The study, ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Implications of Energy and Carbon Policies for Agriculture and Forestry Sectors,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂfound that a Renewable Electricity Standard could generate $14 billion in accumulated additional revenues for agriculture and forestry, increasing the demand for and production of dedicated energy crops for biomass feedstocks.
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ The study goes on to show that a Renewable Electricity Standard could create an additional $215 billion of additional economic activity, more than 700,000 jobs and $84 billion to the nation\'s gross domestic product.

Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners would stand to gain significant and widespread economic benefits if a properly constructed Renewable Electricity Standard is implemented on top of the Renewable Fuels Standard set by federal energy legislation in 2007.
The findings come in a University of Tennessee Bio-based Energy Analysis Group study commissioned by 25x\'25 and released at the National Association of Farm Broadcasting convention in Kansas City, Mo.
The authors of the study, Burton C. English, Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, Chad Hellwinckel, Kimberly L. Jensen and Christopher D. Clark, are professors and Jamey Menard is a research associate in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Tennessee. Co-author Tristram O. West is an ecosystem scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md.
The study, ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Implications of Energy and Carbon Policies for Agriculture and Forestry Sectors,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ found that a Renewable Electricity Standard could generate $14 billion in accumulated additional revenues for agriculture and forestry, increasing the demand for and production of dedicated energy crops for biomass feedstocks. And while that would cause shifts to move intensely managed pasture land, University of Tennessee researchers predict that forest residues, thinnings and tree harvest will play a significant role in meeting those feedstock demands. There would be no significant changes to commodity cropland use, or crop and livestock prices. Since both prices and production increase over time for beef, pork and poultry, gross returns will also increase.
The study goes on to show that a Renewable Electricity Standard could create an additional $215 billion of additional economic activity, more than 700,000 jobs and $84 billion to the nation\'s gross domestic product.

6) The Green Economy Is Growing, It's Inevitable
by Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Green For All on 08.23.11
BUSINESS & POLITICS

Since 2008, these two things haven't changed: the world is getting warmer and millions of Americans are out of work. They're not going away any time soon.
Green For All was founded on the idea that those two problems could be relieved with a common solution, green jobs. We've seen that this can work; renewable energy businesses are among the fastest growing in the American economy.
We've also learned that the green economy holds much more promise than just renewables. The scope of jobs that improve our environment runs from factory workers building high-efficiency vehicles to entrepreneurs selling organic skincare products to businesses that turn a profit recycling waste from shredded automobiles.
In July, the Brookings Institution released a report detailing the extent of the green economy. Some 2.7 million Americans work at green jobs – more than work in the fossil fuel industry. The US Conference of Mayors estimates that number will almost triple by 2040. And green jobs are quality jobs. Median wages are 13 percent higher than the median – and they're available to more Americans who have a high school degree. Investment in clean energy projects yields more than three times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels.
Even so, there is a lot of room for growth. Back in 2008, we argued that the green economy held great promise – and could grow to scale if Congress acted boldly. Had Congress passed comprehensive climate legislation, for example, or if they'd enacted the HOME STAR program.
Neither of which happened. If they had, millions more Americans would be at work right now. Just as millions more could be at work had the stimulus been larger. Just as millions could be put to work today by decisive government action. The only thing in more critical condition than our global environment is our political environment.
Which is too bad. We've seen the positive impact that support from government can have at a local level – in Philadelphia and Portland, Oakland and Atlanta. Some projects haven't been as successful; others still have been runaway successes. This is how the American economy works.
It's how the global economy works as well. Germany recently passed the United States to assume the number two position in global clean energy investment. In first place – by a mile – is China, where government investment is deliberate and robust. Clean energy is a growing market, but a confined one – and every sale made by overseas competitors is a job lost stateside.
Some people are just fine with that. Few economic sectors in history have had an active segment of the population rooting for its failure. Fossil fuel companies, climate change deniers, those happy to see a stagnant economy until November 2012 – there are many for whom a robust, green economy is a threat. Many see those 2.7 million jobs and wish they didn't exist.
Well, they do. And that number will grow. We wish it would grow faster: the faster it grows, the sooner we can stem the worst impacts of global warming and the sooner we get money into households that desperately need it.
But that number will grow. We'll step over obstacles we encounter and roadblocks placed in front of us.
It's inevitable.
The green economy will grow.

7) EPI presents 11 effective policies for job creation and stronger economic growth
In the weeks leading to President Obama\'s job creation plan, the media turned to EPI to understand the severe troubles of the labor market and for ideas on how to save and create jobs in the near future. Last week, EPI released a Briefing Paper, Sustained high joblessness causes lasting damage to wages, benefits, income, and wealth, that explained why the pain of joblessness extends well beyond unemployed workers. It was covered by a wide range of news outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, and in a column by nationally syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson.
EPI also released the report Putting America back to work by Ross Eisenbrey, Lawrence Mishel, Josh Bivens and Andrew Fieldhouse, which outlined 11 policy proposals to create jobs. EPI Vice President Ross Eisenbrey discussed these job creation proposals on CNN and ABC News, as did Federal Budget Policy Analyst Andrew Fieldhouse in USA Today. While not exhaustive, the proposals illustrated the types and scale of policies needed to put a real dent in joblessness in the near term. Some of the proposals are:
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ Temporarily increase disposable income for low- and middle-income consumers by renewing the payroll tax cut or replacing it with a refundable tax rebate, to create roughly 1 million jobs.
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ Enact a direct job creation program to put up to 2.2 million people to work over the next two years repairing schools, rebuilding communities, improving national parks, and rehiring police officers, firefighters, and teachers.
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ Pass President Obama\'s budget request for the Surface Transportation Act, increasing employment by an average of 117,000 jobs annually over the next three years, or 350,000 jobs total, with larger job gains in later years.
ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¢ Enact a job creation tax credit for firms that add employees, increase hours, or raise wages for rank-and-file workers, which could create 2.4 million jobs over the next two years if designed properly.

Good lord Larry that was a liberal manifesto.To answer each point would take a year.To politely listen,and show disagreement will take but one day of voting November hence.I hope you understand it is not ignorance that will vote these ideas down,but honest disagreement about what is best for this country.I would say that Obama and his early super majority probably would of come to your birthday party.But enough of us believe(I think)that he was bad for America.And that will vote him(and you) out.Hope you can have some respect for that decision.

Elaine.Last first.Not everyone can become a surgeon.We don't promise the opportunity for equal results in this country.The only charge is for equal opportunity.But it seems we are OK with everyone,except an ever smaller percentage of people who produce…… being on the government dole.This stems from a core lack of belief in the rugged individualism and greatness of America and her people.You have been beaten down.You repeat over and over no way out ,no way out, and see an ever growing poor and hurting middle class.You believe it is forever and demand those who have succeeded to pay to support a permanent underclass.And who is the boogeyman?Corporatism.Well I have tons of friends who own corporations.They do not go to any meetings that discuss taking over the world.They work hard,and go home to their kids soccer games.Im glad you noticed how many taxes people pay even if they don't pay Fed income taxes.It really is endless is it not?Yet never enough.You just went a long way toward answering your question of government over involvement in our lives.Of course healthcare must be reformed.Tort law reform and opening competition will go a long way.And Republicans have sat on their hands.They talk about shooting down Obama…but what then?But forced socialized health care costs can never really be estimated here.All indicators show it is monstrous ,less effective ,and well beyond our scope to pay for(and unconstitutional).And pointing to other countries is useless.I have one friend who pays 3 grand for his workers insurance.Under Obama arching toward 14 grand.Solution… fire the workers.
What does government do well?They over tax ,over regulate damn near everything we do Elaine.We built the Empire state building in 18 months during the depression.Today ground zero has not passed its zoning permits(Donald trump)There is nothing the private sector does not do better.The Congress runs its own in house bank.It has become non solvent twice because our Congressmen bounce checks to the tune of 10s of millions.The charge officer is in jail.They have their own restaurant.Went belly up.Ever see their pensions and benefits plans?You talk of corporations overpaying CEO?.My God government does not produce one job.Corporations produce the huge amount,and the bulk of everything we eat,wear,travel in,on,and through.Nothing within your sight but for Gods creations are not produced by people who own their own businesses, and corporations.And this you believe is the problem?People and government..One is the host and one is the leech.
By the way….Dodd and Franks should both be in jail and no where near any economic guardianship.Their hand (and lies) in Fanny and Freddy are proof enough.Speaking of which, look at what they just admitted to paying their head guys.And they want 6 billion more of our money to do so.This is how government works.
Elaine empathy seems to be uppermost in your mind and heart.Can you not believe that we on the right simply believe we can do better to provide for the common good(and our safety nets) by unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of this country?This will demand a lessoning of government taxation and over regulation.The alternative is a redistribution of the wealth to 1)produce government jobs- like one fellow digs a hole ,while the next fills it in(old new deal comic)
2)Provide a socialistic backdrop that will precipitate an ever growing user class and an ever shrinking producing one.NON SUSTAINABLE!
We have little choice.And though i wish we could pay for the things you want,We can not.We are broke remember.
Tim as always….Good to see you still pushing a shut down in dialog.You natural born socialist you

Michael E CONVENIENTLY does not respond to the points I make BECAUSE HE CAN'T. He can ONLY stick to his SICK CONSERVATIVE ABSURD MANIFESTO and BORING, NONSENSICAL TEA PARTY TALKING POINT. Typical.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF Michael E:

Michael E gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Michael e gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Michael e's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Michael e reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Michael e dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Michael e begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Michael e's employer pays these standards because Michael e's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Michael e is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a workers compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Michael e needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Micaheel e's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Michael e's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression, and from felons such as George Bush\'s brother who caused the collapse of the Savings and Loans after a $250,000,000 theft through unsecured loans to cronys..

Michael e is home from work . He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating pinko liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal pinko socialist stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Michael e wouldn't have to.

Michael gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host, an illegal drug user and fascist, keeps saying that ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“liberals are bad and conservatives are good.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Michael e enjoys throughout his day.

Michael e agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Michael: If the outstanding response by Larry was not enough to convince you that there are many viable ways of addressing our problems, then nothing will.
Social mobility is dying in this country. It is no longer possible to play by the rules, go to school, study hard, and expect to fulfill your dreams. It is now more difficult to climb the socio-economic ladder to success than ever before, and even harder than in several other developed nations.
Yes, I've been beaten down. Beaten down by ideologues who think that reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the official motto of the U.S. and to encourage its display in all public buildings is just the relief we need. Idelogues who voted NOT to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, NOT to end oil subsidies even when they post record profits and often pay few if any taxes, NOT to extend unemployment benefits unless tax relief skewed to the wealthy is passed, but vote to literally shutter the E.P.A. because clean air and clean water interfere with profits and the Dodd-Frank bill attempts, as modest as it is, to regulate Wall St. It (Dodd-Frank)also establishes a Consumer Protection Bureau which the ideologues (mostly Republican) are solidly against. One would have thought that the meltdown of a deregulated Wall St. would have catapulted everyone into putting regulations in place to avoid another, but it seems to have had the opposite effect on some who think that, like a classroom of children with no teacher, Wall St. is willing to regulate itself. It has been proven that it is either incapable or unwilling (or both) to do so.
I am not opposed to success. Of course, corporations produce. via their workers. I'm not opposed to that creative, bright, energetic, smart entrepreneur (or entrepreneurial spirit, as you call it) who makes a ton of money and, often, in the process makes this world a better place for many. What I am opposed to are those who cheat, who engage in behavior which melted the economy and robbed people, here and abroad, of their economic well-being. Wall St. engaged in behavior that literally destroyed millions of lives which might never be made whole again and their punishment was….nothing….from what I can see. Yet you and others like you fight against "big government" that would dare to interfere in such egregious abuses against others and tell us, even after all this damage, that privatization is better and bringing back Glass-Steagall or any regulations, for that matter, is really "over-regulating." Protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink–all for public health, safety, and welfare–is over- regulating, too. Let's have rivers spontaneously catch fire (as they did before the E.P.A. was created under a Republican president) because the environment was becoming so polluted. Embrace pollution instead. It's the new normal. It's also anti-social and very damaging to this already damaged planet.
High health care costs are hurting all of us, as well as U.S. manufacturers. We do, as noted by Larry, need single payer (Medicare for all). This is not (Heaven forbid) socialized medicine. It's socialized insurance which most other major democracies have had for a long time. The government does not control hospitals or doctors' practices. Everything is still based on a fee for
service but the government administers the program, just as it does with Medicare, with a 2% overhead vs. up to a 30% overhead from insurance companies.
The wealth has already been redistributed–to the top. We want it back. Corporations sit on two trillion dollars of profits and refuse to hire. They store their profits in tax havens and then want a "tax holiday" to bring the money back into the U.S., tax free, just as they were allowed to do in 2004 under the Bush administration. Productivity of the U.S. worker is higher than ever, as wages stagnant or fall and CEO salaries/profits are blossoming.
So….a dangerously polluted environment; corporate rule (and we've seen the abuses of that), virtually no regulations (certainly not for Wall St.); taxpayer bail-outs of private losses (which is certain to happen with no regulations; no social safety net for the old, sick, disabled, or unemployed; privatization of everything because, like Wall St., that works so much better, especially when there is no accountability, along with a heavy dose of old-time religion……. I guess that pretty much describes much of the agenda of the radical right.
Please re-read Larry's comments. Other than that, there's no point in going round and round with this.

I have read Larry Elaine.I have heard it for years.It is a failed bankrupt ideal for America.I worker for Clinton and Nader.I Know it does not work from the inside.The canards you attribute to Republicans are just that.Im sorry but we do not see eye to eye ,and really it will come down to the voting booth.I think you truly thought when the tea party stated it's beliefs that they could just be snowballed aside by such rhetoric.I hope we have proved to you that we are serious partners.No new taxes,and an end to the expansion of government size and scope will be our way.An end to deficit spending,and borrowing.If we on the right were able to secure the presidency, and the super majority, I believe you would see things roar forward(much to your chagrin.)Far different from the backsliding malaise , and destruction carried like a plague by a clueless Obama.It is simple to say because we think your liberal ideas are beyond stupid that we don't care.But it is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors.When you say "that is the agenda of the radical right"I would say your next president will be Romney.And he is not in that club ,while Obama leads the radical left however cloaked.So again you are pulling out boogeymen and attributing things to them to frighten the electorate.I don't think it will work this time.My guess is Obama will get smoked.And I only get one vote.So Im not alone in thinking this whole liberal ideology a complete failure.DO YOU REALLY CARE?If you did you would see the scope of your failure and step aside. Irregardless of what you want…soon enough you will.I don't blame you.You have been beaten down by a dangerously polluted political ideology.America suffers under it's influence that robs the spirit.Every politician who agrees with you and thinks you cant make it anymore….HAS MADE IT!Yet it butters their bread to keep you down by telling you there is no way out.This country can and will snap back.Not by ringing its hands and begging from the most prosperous.Just watch

By the way I just re read Larry.It occurs to me that in his world- everything i am ,and everything I do, is because behind the excellence of my existence, stands some liberal who has suffered and bled for the right to have it just so.That before Conservatives were born I suppose.Larry ..Elaine.Elaine..Larry ,save it for the union hall sing along.Im not drinking this swill.History of the world according to the liberal manifesto is gonna bomb.Come November a year from now

O'Reilly says "The Occupy Wall Street Movement is not a spontaneous protest against economic inequality. It is a well-thought-out campaign to bring down the infrastructure of this country, to turn us into a Western European-type entitlement state."
Huh? We'd love to re-build the infrastructure! Didn't he hear it was the R's who filibustered the infrastructure bill? (:

I think Martha he is wrong that it is" thought out".But The idea that we need to become more like Europe is a strange one that does seem to run like a currant through the minds of many of those gathered.I would go so far as to say through the Democratic party.

Elaine…A new book out" The great financial crisis" by Foster and Magdof I believe -is right up your isle.It will reinforce many of your belief(sadly).Tim would like it as well.I thought it had interesting points.Of course my thoughts on the book were very different.It points to the current crisis as the inevitable result of capitalism.Read it ,but remember that prognosticators along these lines are almost always wrong.

Wow I remember back in the 70s a law firm I worked for outsourced their transcriptions to Singapore because the non-native English typists [remember them? They were people who used a thing called a typewriter…] tended to make fewer of the 'teh' errors and the 'their, there, they're" errors. It looks like now though that the Koch brothers have subbed out their online trolling to someone overseas as well, judging by the "I worker for Clinton" style bad google translate posts that crop up here and on other forums. Offer up a cogent argument and the response is "to answer each point would take a year" so I'll just spew pre-digested talking points blah blah blah Obama blah tort reform blah government too big blah blah blah blah….I hope Koch pays well.

Rafael Im sure they do….pay well.So are you a lawyer ,or the guy who outsourced transcriptions to Singapore because the non-native English typists?I always wanted to meet that guy.
You remind me of the fastidious guy in the odd couple.Felix Unger.Lets see if your a stupid little jerk or if you have even half a brain.I'll give you the test…….Did you vote for Obama?Come on ya did -didn't ya?

Just wanted to thank everyone, especially Larry and Elaine, for totally blowing Michael e out of the water! Michael e, take your toys home, you can't hang intellectually with these people. Why do you continue to haunt this blog with your old tired screed? I keep waiting for him to make a valid, verifiable point, but he can't, so it never happens. What an obtuse, ignorant Bore!

Damnit Keltickev you called me an obtuse ignorant bore.Two questions…Are you a girl, and did we ever date?
Really I respect that Larry and Elaine believe in the liberal creed, hook line and sinker.They obviously are not just following along, and truly believe that this is best for this country and her people.I do respect that.They have educated themselves along those lines.That is the great thing about this country.The diversity.Yet why is it beyond you to believe that I have the same beliefs of what is good for this country, from a different viewpoint?Certainly i will not be alone in voting Obama home.What is this elitism that believes "we" are intellectually inferior and morally bankrupt who believe differently from you?I worked for Clinton and Nader.I have come up in a political family.I think I have a valid understanding of "government in action".My guess is most people on these blogs have no practical experience.They live and die on what they glean from a very limited google.
I excelled in school(One shared by your BAM en chief), and have a pretty difficult/responsible,profitable job by any measure.Along the way i think i have lived a good life.Yet you see me not fit to even sit at your table to discuss matters of such import with such weighty intellects as blog here.Truth is Im the only one here who throws in a conservative thought in what is a total liberal backslap,one to the other.Really I would say where do you get off.But in the end that matters less than WHEN you get off.I do believe that will be next November.
P.s There are NO valid ,verifiable points,against liberalism.That is part of the sickness

What'd I tell ya, Elaine? Are you savoring the madness yet? Notice that the more he scribbles, the less sense it makes–the snake finally swallows his own tail, above: "P.s There are NO valid ,verifiable points,against liberalism.That is part of the sickness" (Syntax and grammar of original–TimN) Got that?

Tim I even respect the views of an avowed socialist like yourself.Your a persnickety little creep at times.You usually snipe from the sidelines ,and seldom take a stand,or back a horse.A cherry picker.You try to deconstruct whatever conservative point comes down the line(even to the lowly point of correcting grammer).That's what I mean when i say there are no arguments against liberalism.Not when dealing with people like you anyway.Semantics,minushia,tunnel vision,and the suspension of reality, or responsibility for your ideology's failures.All part and parcel of any conversation with you.But….. all types of views are needed in this amazing country.Yours just as much as mine.I just hope you can find it in you to respect/accept the decision of the American people when they vote this administration out.
Ps Your president yesterday said "AX" twice instead of ASK. Recently he also spelled diversity as deversity.He was amused when he was "Caught" in the mistake by the teacher of the children he was speaking to.His written words to them also forgot 2 commas.At that point he laughed and said "now Im getting raked over the coals."Tim what shall we do?Woe is me…..is us.Iz we woed by dis? Don't AX me :)

Just heard an amazing stat today that points to the massive hypocrisy that is Barack Obama ,and his party.Ever wonder why wall street donated to Obamas campaign far over what they gave to the right?Well wall st journal reports that "wall street" made more in two and a half years under BAM than all 8 years of Bush!It is to laugh